Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What's important to recognize here, is that touchyliberal is a disingenuous asshole. Nowhere did I infer that 90% of blacks are on welfare. My message was to convey that approximately 90% of blacks are liberals and they've been conditioned to believe that they are victims of white conservatives. Of course, anyone who is NOT a disingenuous asshole, knows that is total bullshit. In essence, they have grown dependent on guidance from the DNC. The irony here is, that the Left has been grooming black liberals for government welfare while they've been feeding blacks this 'white devil' nonsense. The thing I find confusing, is why are so many black Americans stupid enough to lap up this deceptive horse shit?

Chicklet is a parody, it's got to be. Nothing else could be so predictable and scripted. I have found it best to simply ignore his posts, he contributes absolutely nothing to the forum other than, antagonism.

I can answer your last question though, if you want an honest answer. They are 'stupid enough to believe' because it is easy for them. When you are poor and black, it is easier to think of yourself as a victim because of the white man keeping you down, than to take advantage of the opportunities presented to you, if you work hard at getting an education and being a responsible person, making responsible choices, etc. When the black person is raised up in a culture that constantly points to racial discrimination as the source of all it's problems, it is just easier to accept this must be the truth, and what white people say, must be false. When they open a history book, it is full of past discrimination by white people, and it's just hard for them to believe that all of these white people changed their minds and hearts in a few generations. So there is a catalyst for distrust here, and it is coupled with the victimhood mentality, and this is why they continue to lap up deceptive horse shit.

If Chicklet, evince or BAC, ...or any self-respecting black person here, would go take a look at the economic prosperity status of their race from their emancipation to today, they will learn that black people actually managed to improve their status gradually, from an economic perspective (I'm not talking about discrimination socially). After WWI and WWII, blacks were able to work and buy homes, feed their families, send their kids to college. Yes, we had blatant and terrible discriminatory policies, but they still managed to do better than living in dirt floor sharecropper shacks, like their grandparents. Black people, as a race, did consistently better economically, until around 1965, when the Federal government began the Liberal White Guilt policies of LBJ and others, and since then, there has been a steady decline in the economic status of the black community. There are currently more unemployed and unemployable blacks than any time in our history, and 78% of black children are born with no father around, so the problem exacerbates itself as time moves on.
When you raise these points, you are labeled a "racist" because it doesn't fit the template of Liberal White Guilt. You see, we have to all believe that Texas redneck Lyndon Baines Johnson was without a racist bone in his body or thought in his mind, when he came up with the Great Society. He just loved black people so much, and thought they deserved everything they ever wanted, because he was a nice old man who was on their side! But what did his programs do? They literally enslaved generation after generation of black people, who might have achieved greatness had they been motivated. It's kind of like LBJ said, "look, we'll give you a popsicle, and you go sit over there in the corner and be good, and stop this marching stuff, okay?" And the black people took the popsicle.

In the end, it didn't change attitudes. Black people still have a problem with white people, and probably always will. And to be honest, maybe they should have a problem? Maybe that is deserved? But at some point, black people will have to honestly look at the situation and make a conscious change.

 

[DamnYankee]

Most people don't take the south seriously. It's laughed at far more often than it is taken seriously, and is therefore not an object for hatred. You should feel pride in knowing that I take the south seriously enough to hate. People do still hate the Confederacy, though.

In 1860, there were also those people who viewed slavery as immoral, and the property claim as evil (just like today with abortion). Oddly enough, they didn't pose a threat to slavery, and many were willing to compromise with the south in order to maintain the union. As it happened, the southerners were a bunch of whiny little faggots who didn't like being called out, and seceded.

the only whiny fags here are you and touchyliberal.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Wow, an open admission that you are a bigot and don't care what anyone thinks about it. Amazing. What the living fuck do you mean by "take the South seriously?" You mean as an entity functioning as a ghost government in the backwoods? What the fuck are you talking about? The South is a region of the United States of America, you wouldn't say people don't take the Northeast seriously! Take them seriously? You mean anyone who lives south of the Mason Dixon can not be taken seriously? On anything at any time, ever? WOW!



In 1860, there were maybe 1% or less of the population, who felt that black slaves were human beings who deserved every right of white human beings. Most of these people were in the Pennsylvania area, and were Dutch Quaker. That's a part of their religious philosophy, and the only reason they held such a view. For the most part, America was extremely "racist" by today's standards. Yes, many people viewed slavery as immoral, just as many people today view gambling as immoral, but slavery was legal. It was not, as you describe, a "property claim" as this was determined by the SCOTUS in Dred Scott. It was not about a "threat to slavery" that the South was concerned with, it was property rights, and the US Courts had determined that slaves were property, it was not a Southern "claim" but a matter of SCOTUS ruling.

You must understand, it wasn't so easy to just say slavery is wrong and we shouldn't do that. We can look at it today and say that, because we have the enlightenment of history, and live in a different time. In 1860, it wasn't that easy to just up and end slavery. First of all, we had established an institution and way of life for many people, relying on slave labor. Not just Southerner plantation owners benefited, the northern textile industry depended on Southern cotton, it made millionaires of shipping tycoons and exporters, and indeed, the nation itself, because cotton was our primary economic engine at the time. Well, you can't pick cotton without slaves, so how the hell do you free them? We overlooked the human indignity of slavery for the economic good of white folks. That's the truth of the matter, and it's something you never can realize or understand, if you have cast all blame and responsibility on the dirty South.

Where I live, when you reference "the south," its pretty much like delivering a punch line. The region is a joke, and the people living in it are contributing elements to said joke. People generally have respect for the region of New England, because it is very elite, and populated by residents of respectable states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut (not shitty states like Mississippi and Arkansas). It was also the birthplace of the American Revolution, contains 4 of the 8 Ivy League colleges, and is generally a pretty awesome place.

I find the backhanded comment about the Quakers odd. I always find it funny when people cite a positive feature about a Christian group, and then say, "but they only behave that way because their religion commands it." Wow, such wisdom!

In 1860, few people believed blacks were equal to whites. Even today, you still have ethnic prejudice - just look at those lazy Wops, drunken Irish, perverted Frogs, and those evil Krauts! That said, the only people who were arguing that slaves weren't humans were southerners and defenders of slavery. People didn't really even bother to make those arguments until the abolition movement got into full swing, following the Second Great Awakening. I will blame northern racism and apathy on northerners, and southern racism and slavery on the dirty fucking south.

 

[DamnYankee]

The fact that you are so willfully ignorant of The South is hilarious.

 

[zappasguitar]

In 1860, there were maybe 1% or less of the population, who felt that black slaves were human beings who deserved every right of white human beings. Most of these people were in the Pennsylvania area, and were Dutch Quaker. That's a part of their religious philosophy, and the only reason they held such a view. For the most part, America was extremely "racist" by today's standards. Yes, many people viewed slavery as immoral, just as many people today view gambling as immoral, but slavery was legal. It was not, as you describe, a "property claim" as this was determined by the SCOTUS in Dred Scott. It was not about a "threat to slavery" that the South was concerned with, it was property rights, and the US Courts had determined that slaves were property, it was not a Southern "claim" but a matter of SCOTUS ruling.

You must understand, it wasn't so easy to just say slavery is wrong and we shouldn't do that. We can look at it today and say that, because we have the enlightenment of history, and live in a different time. In 1860, it wasn't that easy to just up and end slavery. First of all, we had established an institution and way of life for many people, relying on slave labor. Not just Southerner plantation owners benefited, the northern textile industry depended on Southern cotton, it made millionaires of shipping tycoons and exporters, and indeed, the nation itself, because cotton was our primary economic engine at the time. Well, you can't pick cotton without slaves, so how the hell do you free them? We overlooked the human indignity of slavery for the economic good of white folks. That's the truth of the matter, and it's something you never can realize or understand, if you have cast all blame and responsibility on the dirty South.

Oh.


My.


GOD.


So, according to you, "less than 1% or less of the population of ALL OF AMERICA of 1860, felt that black slaves were human beings who deserved every right of white human beings"?

Oh you get to back that insanity up with some documentation, or just admit you pulled the number out of your ass...that is completely ludicrous to believe such a tiny percentage of Americans thought slavery was wrong.

And sure, people with money invested in the slave trade just couldn't up and state they'd been taking part in an immoral trade and change professions...they had family to care for!

At least that's what greedy people who profitted from the slave trade told themselves while they continued to profit from the sale of their fellow human beings.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It's amazing how only 1% felt that way in 1860, and yet in 1865, they were willing to meet the 75% requirement to pass an Amendment banning slavery, and then went two steps further granting full Civil Rights and Voting Rights for black men meeting the basic requirements. Biggest shift of public opinion in world history!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh.


My.


GOD.


So, according to you, "less than 1% or less of the population of ALL OF AMERICA of 1860, felt that black slaves were human beings who deserved every right of white human beings"?

Oh you get to back that insanity up with some documentation, or just admit you pulled the number out of your ass...that is completely ludicrous to believe such a tiny percentage of Americans thought slavery was wrong.

And sure, people with money invested in the slave trade just couldn't up and state they'd been taking part in an immoral trade and change professions...they had family to care for!

At least that's what greedy people who profitted from the slave trade told themselves while they continued to profit from the sale of their fellow human beings.

See, now here is one of the reasons you're such a fucked up retard, I never said that less than 1% thought slavery was wrong. You made this assumption because I said that less than 1% believed black slaves were equivalent to white people. There is not a connection here, it is an assumption on your part, and it's totally inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of white people who fully supported abolition, still did not view a black slave as being equal to a white person.

As for your suggestion that people just become enlightened and give up the only way of life they've ever known, it's preposterous. Let's assume by some fucking miracle, every slave owner woke up one morning with a changed heart and mind, and released all their slaves.... abandoned the cotton business for something else... what do you suppose would have happened? Well, what would happen if all the people in the oil industry woke up one morning and decided they couldn't drill for oil anymore because of the environment? Do you think we'd all say, "Well, that oil stuff was good, but now we'll just have to get by without it... anyone seen any whales?" No, fucking retard, that's not what would happen, we would collapse as a civilization without oil. If the cotton producers had stopped producing cotton, the price of cotton would have skyrocketed, because cotton was in very high demand. In fact, at that particular time, it was MORE important to our general economy than oil has ever been, and that's a mighty tall order. Now, if cotton suddenly brings twice as much, are you more or less inclined to get rid of your slaves and follow your conscience into something else? Do you see the problem with your retarded idiocy, or would we have to actually experience collapse of society for you to imagine it? (That's a rhetorical question, it's obvious you are that retarded.)

Now, you can say, we eventually did end slavery and the cotton industry eventually did have to cope without slave labor, and society didn't collapse... but society did somewhat collapse for those who lived in the south and owned plantations, didn't it? Yes, society as we know it, was totally destroyed in the South following the Civil War. The South has literally never recovered from the economic devastation. For the retards out there, please don't read this as some endorsement of slavery or argument we should have kept slavery to save the economy, that is not what I am saying. But the notion that people could or would have just given up the way of life they had always known, for the unknown, is ludicrous. It's something that has never happened before, in all of human history.

It is so predictably easy for retards such as yourself, to look back on history and believe society collectively held some modern liberal's view on race, and the despicable Southerners would have none of it, until you defeated them in a war. But if that were the case, why didn't Congress, controlled completely by the North following the war, pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965? Why did that take another century, if so many Northerners were so adamant about equal rights for black people? It's because that simply wasn't the case, and being opposed to slavery is not the same as believing in equal rights. You have connected them together in order to try and establish your case, that Southern people were racists. The problem is, the whole goddamn country was racist.

In psychology it is called "transference" and it's when you transfer your guilt onto someone else, because you don't want to deal with your own guilt. It's what bigots do all the time, it's how they remain ignorant in their bigotry. You should try to do something about that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where I live, when you reference "the south," its pretty much like delivering a punch line. The region is a joke, and the people living in it are contributing elements to said joke.

So nothing matters with regard to content of character at all? If you happen to pop out of momma's womb south of the Mason-Dixon, you are forever a "joke" until the day you die, and there is nothing you can do about that? You can go to school and get smart enough to send rockets to the moon or rovers to Mars, but you are still "a joke" because of the region you were born in?

You have just presented everyone on the board, every bit of evidence they need to declare you a bigot. You are even more despicable than sheet-wearing klansmen, because at least they are honest about their bigotry. You want to deceive people into thinking you aren't a bigot, but what you just posted, confirms it beyond any shadow of doubt. Being that you are totally bigoted toward Southern people, it stands to reason you are probably a bigot towards any number of other things your ignorant mind can't accept. You will never admit it, but I'll bet you that if a black man moved in next door to you, your ass would be moving next week. Because that is how you are, you see people's skin color, just like where they are from, and you make a prejudiced judgement without considering a thing in the world about character.

People generally have respect for the region of New England, because it is very elite, and populated by residents of respectable states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut (not shitty states like Mississippi and Arkansas). It was also the birthplace of the American Revolution, contains 4 of the 8 Ivy League colleges, and is generally a pretty awesome place.

Well that is great, but several points of order... your first point is that New England states are better because they are populated by Northern elites and not Southerners. Second point is, that we fought the American Revolution there. But where else should it have been fought? Were there no soldiers from the South? Finally, you have schools who belong to the Ivy League. Big woop! Nothing you have said has any merit or credibility, it is all a bunch of spewing anti-South bigotry, and nothing more.

I find the backhanded comment about the Quakers odd. I always find it funny when people cite a positive feature about a Christian group, and then say, "but they only behave that way because their religion commands it." Wow, such wisdom!

There was no backhanded comment about the Quakers. I stated a fact that apparently you didn't know. We had a large concentration of Quakers in Pennsylvania, and these were the people who started the abolition movement. They believed, as a matter of their religion, that slaves were the same as every other human being, and deserved the same rights. Other than a scant few Unitarians, there were no other groups of white people who held this viewpoint. Most abolitionists were opposed to the inhumanity of slavery, it had nothing to do with believing in racial equality. You have to try and make this false connection in order to portray the South as "racist" and the North as "non-racist" and turn the Civil War into a precursor to Civil Rights. I've shot holes all in that idea, because if it were true, we would have had given black people Civil Rights in 1865 and not 1965, and we didn't.

In 1860, few people believed blacks were equal to whites. Even today, you still have ethnic prejudice - just look at those lazy Wops, drunken Irish, perverted Frogs, and those evil Krauts! That said, the only people who were arguing that slaves weren't humans were southerners and defenders of slavery. People didn't really even bother to make those arguments until the abolition movement got into full swing, following the Second Great Awakening. I will blame northern racism and apathy on northerners, and southern racism and slavery on the dirty fucking south.

Actually, it was because of a great theorist being studied in those wonderful Ivy League schools up north, that people mostly didn't believe blacks were of the same species. Darwin's works are responsible for this, but again, the bigot can't accept responsibility, they must find a scapegoat for their guilt. So there certainly WERE people making the argument, based on Darwinism, that blacks weren't humans, and it didn't come from the South, we didn't have Ivy League schools.

I will blame northern racism and apathy on northerners, and southern racism and slavery on the dirty fucking south.

Well you can't blame slavery on the South because the South didn't make slavery legal or uphold the institution for nearly a century before the CSA existed. Tell me, do you also blame San Francisco for the gays? But let's set this little facet aside for the moment, I want to make an objective analysis as a psychiatrist, on your choice of sentence structure here. Notice how, with the North, you combined racism with "apathy" and with the South, you coupled racism with "slavery." This is indicative of your bigoted perception that slavery must have existed because the South wanted it and the North was merely apathetic. That is factually and intellectually inaccurate.

Slavery in the US existed because repeatedly, the US Congress, US Presidents, and US Courts, upheld the institution of it. Some of these people were indeed Southern, but our government was not being completely run by the CSA for 85 years before it existed. It was an accepted institution, and it was ingrained in our culture and economy as a nation, and this persisted for nearly a century before the Civil War or before anyone ever even thought about the Confederate States of America. Therefore, this can't be blamed on the South. Northern industrialists were benefiting from Southern cotton as well, because it was King Cotton. That seems to be the one little detail you don't want to acknowledge here. It had nothing to do with apathy, it had to do with money.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's amazing how only 1% felt that way in 1860, and yet in 1865, they were willing to meet the 75% requirement to pass an Amendment banning slavery, and then went two steps further granting full Civil Rights and Voting Rights for black men meeting the basic requirements. Biggest shift of public opinion in world history!

All of this was done during Reconstruction. In an unprecedented rare moment of our history, Congress passed legislation without the consent of any voter living in a former Confederate state, the South had virtually no Constitutionally-elected representation. That has NEVER happened in our history as a nation. It wasn't a shift in public opinion, it was a slight of hand in order to end slavery and have the 'cause' of the Civil War etched into history forever. The "basic requirements" you refereed to in your crowing about the 1865 CRA, couldn't be met by 98% of the former slaves.

And again, we need to clarify the difference between what I actually stated, and what you have perverted it into. I never said that in 1860, only 1% thought slavery was wrong and should be abolished. I said that less than 1%, regardless of their views on abolition, did not view a black slave as being "equal" to a white person. We have to distinguish there is a difference here, we can't continue the conversation on the notion that an abolitionist believed in racial social equality. That just was not the case in 1860, 1865, or 1965.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Darwin didn't publish until right before the war. His teaching had zero impact on the debate over slavery.

Yes, if you are born south of the line, history has shown that you lack character and decency, and are scum.

Your comments about the Quakers were backhanded and dismissive, because you claimed their morals were forced upon them by adhering to a particular faith.

It's nice to see how supportive you are of corrupt and morally bankrupt politics. I guess you'll be defending partial birth abortion now.

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, if you are born south of the line, history has shown that you lack character and decency, and are scum...

You are racist, nothing more.

 

[Minister of Truth]

All of this was done during Reconstruction. In an unprecedented rare moment of our history, Congress passed legislation without the consent of any voter living in a former Confederate state, the South had virtually no Constitutionally-elected representation. That has NEVER happened in our history as a nation. It wasn't a shift in public opinion, it was a slight of hand in order to end slavery and have the 'cause' of the Civil War etched into history forever. The "basic requirements" you refereed to in your crowing about the 1865 CRA, couldn't be met by 98% of the former slaves.

And again, we need to clarify the difference between what I actually stated, and what you have perverted it into. I never said that in 1860, only 1% thought slavery was wrong and should be abolished. I said that less than 1%, regardless of their views on abolition, did not view a black slave as being "equal" to a white person. We have to distinguish there is a difference here, we can't continue the conversation on the notion that an abolitionist believed in racial social equality. That just was not the case in 1860, 1865, or 1965.

The 13th was passed during the war. As for Reconstruction, I can't think of a more perfect Congress than one which votes without a single Confederate state present to fuck shit up. All of the proles busy licking their wounds and wondering if the liberated slaves would enact glourious retribution upon them. It is the natural order of things for the Patrician States and the Plebe States. This country will be much better off if we never elect another president from a Confederate state again.

Note that the population of the time also didn't view immigrant Italians, Irish, and Slavs as equal to native whites, just as they had done to immigrant Germans earlier in. It's what people do - that doesn't mean they enslave them, beat them, constantly rape them, or kill them. It's funny how much sex slaveowners had with women who were supposedly not human.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Darwin didn't publish until right before the war. His teaching had zero impact on the debate over slavery.

Yes, if you are born south of the line, history has shown that you lack character and decency, and are scum.

Your comments about the Quakers were backhanded and dismissive, because you claimed their morals were forced upon them by adhering to a particular faith.

It's nice to see how supportive you are of corrupt and morally bankrupt politics. I guess you'll be defending partial birth abortion now.

Yes, Darwin's teachings were often used to make an argument that black slaves were not the same species at the rest of us. It's incredible that someone from up North, with all your Ivy League education, would believe otherwise.

History shows no such geographic line or boundary on our planet, you fucked up bigot. You just hate Southern people because you are a bigot, and probably a racist bigot as well. In fact, I surmise that you are a racist bigot, because once before you made some inane point about how your beef with the South is that they screwed up your 'segregated society' plans. Where blacks could have been corralled away in "burros" to avoid contact with the "clean" white folk. Us Southerners had to go and start a war and get them all riled up, and now we have to live next to them, and this is why you hate the South so much.

My comments were NOT backhanded OR dismissive. YOUR INTERPRETATION of my comments may have been, I can't speak for what goes on inside the mind of a racially intolerant bigot. I said nothing about their morals being forced on them, I simply made an observation of fact. The few white people who actually believed as a matter of principle, that black slaves were equal to whites, were religious people who's faith taught them this. The point is, if you weren't a Quaker or Unitarian, you probably didn't hold this view regarding black slaves, and it had nothing to do with whether you thought slavery was immoral.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Darwin didn't publish Origin of Species until late November, 1859. Most southerners to this day are too dumb to understand his writings, anyway.

I would much prefer to be the bigot who hates the south and its history of treason, regression, oppression, and ignorance, than the bigot who sits defending its old arguments for slavery and treason.

1/3

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The 13th was passed during the war.

And during the war, how many votes did the Confederate states have in Congress, moron??? The South had seceded, remember??? They had their own Congress, and were voting on their own laws. The 13th wasn't ratified during the war, this was done during Reconstruction. So stop being a little obtuse twit.

As for Reconstruction, I can't think of a more perfect Congress than one which votes without a single Confederate state present to fuck shit up. All of the proles busy licking their wounds and wondering if the liberated slaves would enact glourious retribution upon them. It is the natural order of things for the Patrician States and the Plebe States. This country will be much better off if we never elect another president from a Confederate state again.

You know, your bigotry and hate will never be relieved by lashing out. I thought I would point it out to you, since you continue to spew hate and vile toward people you simply don't know. You can get on here and spew the most bitter and brutal hate at Southern people, and you can do this for days on end, but it will never result in making you feel satisfied or relieved. You are tormented by your own demons.

As for your argument that public opinion miraculously shifted to endorse civil rights for blacks, it is shot to hell. This means that you have yet to score a point in this debate, I have countered and successfully refuted every argument you have made. Perhaps this is why it is becoming easier and easier for you to be the chickenshit racist you really are, and just start attacking what you are intolerant of?

Note that the population of the time also didn't view immigrant Italians, Irish, and Slavs as equal to native whites, just as they had done to immigrant Germans earlier in. It's what people do - that doesn't mean they enslave them, beat them, constantly rape them, or kill them. It's funny how much sex slaveowners had with women who were supposedly not human.

Note that long after the Civil War, the populations of the time used Chinese peasants to build a railroad, and instituted genocidal policies against Native Americans. This is why it so sickening and abhorrent for you to be sitting here pretending the Civil War was about Civil Rights, when it clearly wasn't. Slavery existed as an institution, it wasn't some offbeat fad that Southerner's adopted because they wanted someone to make their mint juleps.

Note also, that not all slave owners raped and beat their slaves. I know that's hard for a bigot to imagine, but people do behave as individuals, and not stereotypes. While there certainly were cruel and sadistic 'masters' there were also kinder and gentler men who owned slaves, and simply saw them as his tool for labor. Healthy and happy slaves tended to work better, be more productive, and less trouble. So, because of this, many slave owners took the initiatives to treat their slaves fairly well, for slaves. I know that sounds awkward, but in terms of the other available options at the time and place, a well-fed and well-treated slave was probably better off than a typical Irish immigrant just off the boat in NY. At least they had a roof over their heads and food to eat. The point is not to excuse slavery, but to clarify that every plantation wasn't some hell pit of rape and torture.

Walter E. Williams has an interesting perspective on slavery, he is a black professor of Economics at George Mason, and often fills in on talk radio. He says black people should be grateful for slavery! How else would they be in this great land, if not for slavery? Wouldn't most of them have been born in some jungle village of a third world country, if their ancestors had never been brought here? Would they have the same opportunities and life, if they had been born in Africa? So, while slavery is certainly abhorrent and nothing to be proud of, there is a positive aspect to be found.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Darwin didn't publish Origin of Species until late November, 1859. Most southerners to this day are too dumb to understand his writings, anyway.

I would much prefer to be the bigot who hates the south and its history of treason, regression, oppression, and ignorance, than the bigot who sits defending its old arguments for slavery and treason.

1/3

Look, smart ass. YOU made the quip about Southerners not believing blacks were humans, and I simply clarified where that line of thought came from. The fact that you are proving that this was indeed a highly acclaimed and noted moment in academia two years before the war, is something I should be thanking you for, not defending.

I've not defended a single argument for slavery or treason. If you are interpreting my presentation of the facts as that, I am sorry. I don't know how to communicate effectively with bigots. Slavery existed because the US government allowed it to exist and become institutionalized. It was the way cotton growers got their product out of the field to be sold at market, where a lot of white people up north paid great money for. Our courts, congress, and presidents defended slavery, not me. For 85 years they did this, not me. I wasn't here. My ancestors were, and none of them owned slaves.

We have to be careful what we call "treason" because what the CSA did was not treasonous. They were compelled to declare independence, in accordance with the Constitution and under authority of Nature's God, according to the Declaration of Independence.

 

[DamnYankee]

3d is a fag and a bigot, nothing more.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

3d is a fag and a bigot, nothing more.

I don't know if he is homosexual, and that doesn't really matter here, but he is most certainly a flaming bigot.

The thing I don't get, is why does he continue to spew absolute bigoted hate toward the South and Southerners? Most modern bigots try to hide their hate behind claims of friendship with the group they hate... "I've got black friends..." But 3-D makes it clear, he doesn't have any Southern friends, he hates all Southerners equally. I just don't get the point of him constantly belittling and bashing the South. Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? Am I supposed to curl up in the fetal position and cry for mommy? Should I be so ashamed of my heritage that I slit my wrist in disgust? I'm sure 3-D thinks that would be a great idea, but does he actually think he is humiliating someone here? What could be the purpose of this? What is his motive?

My guess, and I bet I'm not far from wrong, is that 3-D is doing this to appease his conscience. He know's he is guilty of being a racist bigot, but instead of changing his attitude and mind, he has decided to defend himself by attacking a scapegoat. If blame for racism can be hung on the South, it absolves his own racist thoughts and makes them perfectly okay. Since he can't really hang racism totally on the South, he has decided to continually infer that's what we should do, through his hate and vitriol. He should be smart enough to realize, us Southerners are accustomed to being insulted and put down, it has been going on our entire lives. Name-calling doesn't really bother us down here, therefore, the only rationale he can have for this is appeasing his own conscience.

 

[DamnYankee]

I don't know if he is homosexual, and that doesn't really matter here, but he is most certainly a flaming bigot.

The thing I don't get, is why does he continue to spew absolute bigoted hate toward the South and Southerners? Most modern bigots try to hide their hate behind claims of friendship with the group they hate... "I've got black friends..." But 3-D makes it clear, he doesn't have any Southern friends, he hates all Southerners equally. I just don't get the point of him constantly belittling and bashing the South. Is this supposed to hurt my feelings? Am I supposed to curl up in the fetal position and cry for mommy? Should I be so ashamed of my heritage that I slit my wrist in disgust? I'm sure 3-D thinks that would be a great idea, but does he actually think he is humiliating someone here? What could be the purpose of this? What is his motive?

My guess, and I bet I'm not far from wrong, is that 3-D is doing this to appease his conscience. He know's he is guilty of being a racist bigot, but instead of changing his attitude and mind, he has decided to defend himself by attacking a scapegoat. If blame for racism can be hung on the South, it absolves his own racist thoughts and makes them perfectly okay. Since he can't really hang racism totally on the South, he has decided to continually infer that's what we should do, through his hate and vitriol. He should be smart enough to realize, us Southerners are accustomed to being insulted and put down, it has been going on our entire lives. Name-calling doesn't really bother us down here, therefore, the only rationale he can have for this is appeasing his own conscience.

Look at it this way, the more he and his ilk do this, any fools who believe their lies won't want to move here. That keeps the rest of the country's average IQ low relative to ours.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dixie, you're the one who argued that the South viewed slaves as property rather than humans. Not only was that a tragedy, but on the day that every last right to property in America has been stripped away, that argument will be the reason for our downfall. Congratulations.